Originally Posted by KRAKMT
Originally Posted by Scott F
Originally Posted by 4ager
Originally Posted by Fireball2
The Hammonds should have gotten probation at most. There is clearly a govt agenda at work against them, for whatever reason.


The Hammonds cut a deal, and the prosecutor crawfished on it. Of course, the Hammond case is now hamstrung to a severe degree due to the Bundys (whom the Hammonds never wanted there in the first place).



THIS!!!


Not affiliated with the case nor was I privy to any discussions but the oral agreement was put on the record. No mention is made in any of the cases regarding a purported sentence nor does that information appear supported by the procedure.
Originally Posted by Ninth Circuit



Although the Hammonds did not enter guilty pleas, the Hammonds agreed not to contest the jury verdicts in exchange for the government moving to dismiss other charges. The resulting posture is the same as that following a plea agreement. We thus will refer to the oral agreement here as a plea agreement and apply to it the law governing plea agreements.


The Hammonds agreed with the government's summary of the plea agreement. Their attorneys also added that the Hammonds wanted the "case to be over" and hoped to "bring th[e] matter to a close." According to the defense, the "idea" of the plea agreement was that the case would "be done with at the sentencing" and that the "parties would accept . . . the sentence that's imposed." The district court then accepted the plea agreement and dismissed the remaining charges.




They cut a deal with a federal judge, then another judge reneged on the deal. Exactly what everyone is PO about. Chit deal in my book and miss application of the statute.


"Life is tough, even tougher if your stupid"
John Wayne